I've got a box (laptop) with a good NVidia card that cannot handle a second monitor -- there is a critical bug that's been there for years that NVidia hasn't fixed (they are aware of it). BSOD-type stuff - not fun.

It is because of bugs like this that made me, a loyal Nvidia fan, finally start looking for an Nvidia-free graphics card solution 5 or 6 years ago. What cinched the decision for me is that I had decided to give Dell a try that year & the XPS system I bought offered an ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, but no beefy Nvidia option that was comparable.

Later when I heard about the hardware flaw in the Nvidia 8x00 series of cards that they refused to do anything about I knew I'd made the right decision. This latest Fermi debacle isn't luring me back, either.

(I'm not even going to mention how long it took Nvidia to get stable Vista drivers.)

I guess you'll be avoiding PCI wireless cards in Windows 7 64 bit altogether then (which is actually a good idea, see below). Linksys and Netgear don't seem to be in the 64-bit driver business as far as I can tell. The one that worked in Windows 7 64-bit was this one by Encore.

It worked well for a while, but keep in mind my computer and my wireless router are in diagonally opposite corners of a two story house and it was blocked by both the kids computer as well as walls and ceilings. This had been an occasional issue in the 32 bit world as well. Most of the time it worked well enough, then it stopped. Maybe one more neighbor added a wi-fi router and the interference pushed me over the edge.

Instead of wireless PCI cards, what I recommend for desktop or stationary computers and am using today is powerline networking. I got a refurbished Linksys powerline adapter kit model PLK300-RM, which I paid about $92 shipped. The technology has gotten very reliable and inexpensive these days, and it appears as ethernet to the computer so you don't have to worry about drivers. Netgear makes them too.

January year (09) I have a computer 64 BIT (TOP OF THE LINE ? )nothing work. Have to go back to to 32.Pain in the ass to be in the frontline.But some hard shield must always take the stand I'm surprised that this is problem (year 10)

Been on Vista x64 since November 2007. Just because I bought the Dell system with it, and one of the intentions was to run VMWare on it with several VM's in parallel. Now it's just a pity that there's only 4 GB of RAM in it, in 1 GB modules, and replacing that is rather expensive, as there are no vacant dimm slots.Mots troubles back then where hardware drivers and AV issues. There was no proper x64 version of what AV package available. Luckily that all changed big time over the last 2 years.Switched to Windows 7 x64 last September. Now only wait for my PC to get replaced, by the end of this year, so I can have more RAM (I'm aiming for 16 GB ) to finally run more than 3 VM's (2003/2008 server) next to each other, and actually use them/put to work at the same time.

All my new/re-installed PC's (at home as well) get treated with x64 Windows 7 these days, as I haven't found any current software that won't work on 64 bit Windows yet. (The earlier troubles are long gone). And the use of extra memory is a nice benefit for most software.Sometimes older hardware, like Canon & HP printers and Canon scanners, need to be hooked up directly to get the proper drivers from Windows Update, but after that they can be easily connected through the network.

I always forget about chipset drivers too, I had forgotten this, but when I bought my motherboard, I did actually seek out one that the manufacturer claimed was compatible with Windows 7 64-bit.

I also assume that if off-the-shelf computers actually work with an operating system it didn't ship with, it's merely coincidental. I don't picture HP saying "Oh, no, the user can't upgrade the computer, he'll have to buy one of our newer computers!" And if you're shipping a computer with 32 bit Windows, there actually is not much point in making it upgradable beyond 4 GB of memory. I see some off the shelf computers are shipping with 64 bit these days, I haven't checked their memory upgradability.

If you don't want to see more than 3GB of memory in the OS, I see very little point in going 64 bit. But I am repeating myself.

Nothing arbitrary about it, and it wasn't Microsoft's decision. 4GB is the maximum address space possible with a 32bit system. Your memory takes up that address space starting from the bottom, and all the devices that have memory mapped ROM or RAM takes it up starting from the top. For instance, the memory on your video card, the ROM on your motherboard, hard drives, etc. At some point they overlap, and that varies from system to system, depending upon the hardware. Once they overlap that ends the top of your accessible RAM.

Personally, I have been running 64bit since the beta of Windows 7 with little problem. The only programs I have run into that wouldn't work for me are ones that lack signed kernel mode drivers. Its not that common, but it happens. You can bypass that requirement at every boot, but you can't turn it off. Which doesn't make me happy, but I deal. Microsoft should have left those of us that wish a way to turn off the requirement. It stinks of big brotherism, and damn it I want to run my PC the way I want to run it, not the way they want me to.

Tekzel, while you can only address 4GB on a 32bit system, we've had PAE since the ppro, allowing the use of 64GB on a 32bit system. Yeah, an app can only see 4GB, but those 4GB can be mapped to any part of the physical memory space... which brings us back to the "devices eating up memory" - this is easily solvable by remapping memory, but MS doesn't support that on 32bit client versions of Windows. Pre-SP1, XP actually did support it (but still - arbitrarily - limited itself to support only 4GB of physical memory). With SP1, the system was changed to support only the lower 4GB of physical memory address space, because of fscktarded driver developers thinking "I'm writing a 32bit driver, I only need to look at the lower 32bit of the PHYSICAL_ADDRESSes".

Nothing arbitrary about it, and it wasn't Microsoft's decision. 4GB is the maximum address space possible with a 32bit system. Your memory takes up that address space starting from the bottom, and all the devices that have memory mapped ROM or RAM takes it up starting from the top. For instance, the memory on your video card, the ROM on your motherboard, hard drives, etc. At some point they overlap, and that varies from system to system, depending upon the hardware. Once they overlap that ends the top of your accessible RAM.

If we were talking purely about hardware then I would agree with you...but we're not.We're talking about the Windows OS.

This topic has been done to death previously here and here - the decision to not support the full 4GB by a 32bit OS is purely an arbitrary one. The 32bit server editions of 2000/2003/2008 all support the use of more than 4GB of physical RAM and as f0dder has mentioned, XP SP0 supported the full 4GB.

EDIT: Dang it! f0dder's done it again! Dear f0dder, could you please set your timezone 1 hour behind mine so I have a chance of sneaking in a reply before you do?

I have to give respect to Dell in that regard. I had a Dell XPS Gen 4 and a Dell 8400 system over here & they both came with Windows XP. When the time came I upgraded them both to Vista with no problems. Later, when the time came again I upgraded them both to Windows 7 with no problems.

There were no weird drivers in either PC, either. Every piece of hardware could be upgraded by using the drivers off of the component manufacturer's web site.